public official shall have the right to complain to, and to have his case impartially examined by, the competent authorities of the state concerned. Article 9

Wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture as defined in Article 1 has been committed, the competent authorities of the state concerned shall promptly proceed to an impartial investigation even if there has been no formal complaint.

Article 10

If an investigation under Article 8 or Article 9 establishes that an act of torture as defined in Article 1 appears to have been committed, criminal proceedings shall be instituted against the alleged offender or offenders in accordance with national law. If an allegation of other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is considered to be well founded, the alleged offender or offenders shall be subject to criminal, disciplinary or other appropriate proceedings.

Article 11

Where it is proved that an act of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has been committed by or at the instigation of a public official, the victim shall be afforded redress and compensation, in accordance with national law.

Article 12

Any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment may not be invoked as evidence against the person concerned or against any other person in any proceedings.

On the same day the General Assembly adopted without vote a related resolution on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in relation to detention and imprisonment (Res. 3453 (XXX)). The resolution requested the Commission on Human Rights at its 32d session to study the question of torture and any necessary steps for ensuring observance of the declaration on torture and the formulation of a body of principles for the protection of persons under any form of detention or imprisonment. It also requested the Committee on Crime Prevention and Control to elaborate a Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and submit it to the General Assembly at its 32d session; it invited the World Health Organization to elaborate principles of medical ethics relevant to the protection of persons subjected to any form of detention or imprisonment against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted in 1955 by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, were adopted in November 1974 by three States-Connecticut, South Carolina, and Ohio-for incorporation in their criminal justice systems. An Executive order issued on November 18, 1974, by Governor John J. Gilligan of Ohio adopted on behalf of that State "the philosophy, intent, principle, and purpose" of the United Nations standards and directed the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, charged with the custody and control of adult felons committed by courts of competent jurisdiction, to adhere to and pursue the spirit and intent of the Rules. The United Nations

standards had been approved by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations by ECOSOC Res. 663 (XXIV) C, July 31, 1957, and recommended for implementation and adoption in the administration of penal and correctional institutions in Member States. They include rules of general application, as well as special rules for prisoners under sentence, insane and mentally abnormal prisoners, and prisoners under arrest or awaiting trial.

The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners may be found in U.N. Doc. A/CONF/6/1, annex I, A-Report of First U.N. Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. Their adoption by Connecticut, South Carolina, and Ohio were reported in The World Jurist, Jan.-Feb. 1975, p. 3.

Amnesty

On November 12, 1975, Ambassador Daniel P. Moynihan, United States Representative to the United Nations, introduced in Committee Three a United States proposal (L. 2175) for a world-wide amnesty for political prisoners. In a statement to the Committee, Ambassador Moynihan cited U.S. support of a Special Political Committee resolution asking for release of political prisoners in South Africa and a Committee Three resolution regarding human rights in Chile. He added:

more and more international pronouncements of this kind declare that there are crimes in international law for which individuals may be held responsible. Similarly, it is more and more held that there are actions against individuals for which governments may be held responsible, at least in the sense that they are expected not to take such actions. The exact state of the law in this area is not one on which there will be universal agreement. Yet, clearly, something akin to common law rights is emerging in international law which protects individuals where "universally condemned" or "abhorrent" actions are involved.

Universality in this matter is of special concern to the United States Government-and we would hope to all governments. There are two grounds for this concern which strike us with special force.

The first is that the selective morality of the United Nations in matters of human rights threatens the integrity not merely of the United Nations, but of human rights themselves. . . . Unless standards of human rights are seen to be applied uniformly and neutrally to all nations, regardless of the nature of their regimes or the size of their armaments, . . . it will quickly be seen that it is not human rights at all which are invoked when selective applications are called for, but simply arbitrary political stand

ards dressed up in the guise of human rights. From this perception it is no great distance to the conclusion that in truth there are no human rights recognized by the international community.

.. the second of the concerns which animate the United States at this point . . . is the concern not only that the language of human rights is being distorted and perverted; it is that the language of human rights is increasingly being turned in United Nations forums against precisely those regimes which acknowledge some or all of its validity and they are not, I fear, a majority of the regimes in this United Nations. More and more the United Nations seems only to know of violations of human rights in countries where it is still possible to protest such violations.

For the full text of Ambassador Moynihan's statement, see Press Release USUN-144(75), Nov. 12, 1975. The operative paragraphs of the U.S. draft resolution on amnesty for political prisoners follow:

1. APPEALS to all governments to proclaim an unconditional amnesty by releasing all political prisoners in the sense of persons deprived of their liberty primarily because they have, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, sought peaceful expression of beliefs and opinions at variance with those held by their governments or have sought to provide legal or other forms of nonviolent assistance to such persons;

2. REQUESTS the Commission on Human Rights and the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities to strengthen their efforts on behalf of political prisoners, including the establishment of working groups to conduct studies including visits, whenever necessary, to determine the facts relevant to the rights of political prisoners and the response of governments to this appeal;

3. URGES all governments to cooperate with the Commission on Human Rights and the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in their efforts on behalf of political prisoners, including requests to make such visits as they may deem necessary for the purpose of investigating, and reporting on the circumstances relating to the detention, trial or imprisonment of such persons;

4. REQUESTS the Secretary General to assist in any way he may deem appropriate in the implementation of this resolution, and to report to the General Assembly at its 31st session with respect to the activities of the Commission on Human Rights and the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in the implementation of this resolution.

On November 21, 1975, the United States Delegation withdrew the U.S. draft resolution on amnesty. Leonard Garment, United States Representative in Committee Three, stated that the reason for the withdrawal was the introduction of 15 amendments designed to turn it into "a meaningless gesture or worse." He added that the United States did not object to the amendments merely because it feared being put in a minority, but because the amendments threatened the rule of law and the inner morality of the United Nations.

See Press Release USUN-157(75), Nov. 21, 1975; for the full text of the U.S. draft resolution and the statements by Ambassador Moynihan and Mr. Garment, see Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIII, No. 1903, Dec. 15, 1975, pp. 867874. For amendments introduced to the draft resolution, see U.N. Doc. A/10284/ Add.1, Dec. 3, 1975.

Economic and Military Assistance

The Department of State on January 17, 1975, instructed U.S. diplomatic posts and consulates to report on significant human rights developments. The instruction called for a documented and up-to-date appraisal of the record, current status, and prospects of host governments in discharging their obligations under international law to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including those of their own nationals. Posts were also asked to report whether those in authority ignore, condone, encourage, or direct activities of officials tending to violate the human rights and fundamental freedoms of people, especially through unlawful killing, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, unfair trials, denial of freedom of movement, religion, opinion, expression, assembly or association or through deprivation of the right to take part in the government. The instruction referred in particular to the need for such information in the light of Section 32 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-189; 87 Stat. 714; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note) and Section 46 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-559; 88 Stat. 1815; 22 U.S.C. 2304), and also to follow through on the U.S.supported initiative against torture made at the previous United Nations General Assembly.

On March 19, 1975, when reports had been received from 85 posts, Monroe Leigh, Legal Adviser of the Department of State, sent a memorandum to Deputy Secretary Robert S. Ingersoll, proposing interim procedures for dealing with the human rights reports, taking account of Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. That Section, added by Section 46 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, cited supra, expressed the sense of Congress that security assistance for any country which engages in "a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights” shall be substantially reduced or terminated. Mr. Leigh attached a statement setting forth considerations relevant to the criterion of "a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights." Excerpts from that statement follow:

The policy guidance to be discerned from Section 502B(a) is that the United States should not ordinarily maintain the close relationship implicit in a large security assistance program with

a government which consistently engages in human rights practices repugnant to internationally accepted minimum requirements. The subsection recognizes that our national interests may require the United States to associate itself with such a government, but indicates that only extraordinary circumstances would justify such an association. The fundamental congressional intent manifested by this statute is to achieve the promotion of human rights rather than the limitation of security assistance programs. Therefore, implementation should be conducted in a manner designed to achieve advances in human rights in the countries with which the United States is associated through security assistance programs. This suggests the need to consider human rights issues in the context of the entire spectrum of our relations with those countries and that we not limit our human rights efforts to the narrow issue of security assistance program levels.

In deciding what constitute gross violations resort should first be had to the specific examples set out in Section 502B(a). These are "torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; prolonged detention without charges; or other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person." In addition, guidance may be found in widely accepted statements in sources of international law. For example, it would seem difficult to describe as less than "gross" those violations described as "grave breaches" by the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of 1949. Thus, Article 147 of the Civilian Convention reads:

"Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

With respect to patterns of human rights violations, it seems reasonable to consider that we are talking both about consistency over a relevant and significant period of time and about a significant range of the kinds of governmental acts or omissions that may violate human rights. A finding that a consistent pattern exists would tend to refute assertions by the country concerned that violations which occurred were the acts of unauthorized officials and at variance with official policy.

... In deciding whether a particular country engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recog